Strike 3 Holdings, LLC v. John Doe subscriber assigned IP address 72.80.200.12
1:25-cv-01955
E.D.N.YApr 14, 2025Background
- Strike 3 Holdings, LLC sued an unnamed defendant identified only by IP address, alleging violation of its copyrights under the Copyright Act.
- Plaintiff sought expedited discovery to learn the identity of the internet subscriber associated with the allegedly infringing IP address through a subpoena to Verizon, the ISP.
- The court recognized that the IP address subscriber might not be the actual infringer, acknowledging risks of misidentification.
- The motion requested permission to serve a Rule 45 subpoena before a Rule 26(f) conference, due to the difficulty of identifying the defendant.
- Similar requests by Strike 3 have been granted in this District, leading to materially similar protective measures to prevent abuse and safeguard subscriber privacy.
- The court ordered a structured process, including notice to the subscriber, an opportunity to contest the subpoena, and restrictions on Plaintiff's use of any disclosed information.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expedited discovery to identify Doe Defendant is warranted | Expedited discovery is needed to identify and serve the real defendant before evidence is lost | Risks of misidentification and privacy invasion outweigh need for early discovery; potential abuse for coercive settlements | Granted, but with strict procedural safeguards to protect subscriber's rights |
| Scope of information Plaintiff may obtain from ISP | Name and address necessary to serve defendant; broader info not needed | Overbroad requests could unduly invade privacy and implicate non-infringers | Only name and address allowed (not phone/email); no info on others sharing the IP |
| Whether Doe Defendant should be informed and allowed to contest disclosure | Not specifically addressed | Asserts right to be notified and to contest or proceed anonymously | Subscriber must receive notice and can move to quash or stay anonymous |
| Plaintiff's right to contact and settle with Doe Defendant | Plaintiff may want to contact for settlement before formal service | Doe Defendant should be protected from coercive or premature contact | Plaintiff prohibited from contact until formal service or court leave |
Key Cases Cited
- Sony Music Entertainment Inc. v. Does 1-40, 326 F. Supp. 2d 556 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (discussing standards for allowing discovery to identify anonymous copyright infringers)
- In re BitTorrent Adult Film Copyright Infringement Cases, 296 F.R.D. 80 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (addressing risks and procedural safeguards in mass copyright infringement suits)
- Patrick Collins, Inc. v. Doe 1, 288 F.R.D. 233 (E.D.N.Y. 2012) (detailing the risks that the subscriber is not necessarily the infringer and the need for protective measures)